comfy_get_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adequately describes the core behavior (returns queue position, progress, and output paths) and hints at conditional output ('when available'). However, it lacks details on error conditions, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies it). The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but could be more comprehensive for a tool with potential side effects or constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently detail the return values. Every word contributes essential information—no fluff or repetition. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward status-checking tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and hints at parameter usage. However, it lacks explicit error handling or behavioral nuances (e.g., what happens if prompt_id is invalid), which would be needed for a perfect score. For a status tool without critical mutations, this is sufficient but not exhaustive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explicitly mention the parameters, but it clarifies the tool's dual purpose ('specific generation or the overall queue'), which implicitly explains the optional 'prompt_id' parameter. The mention of 'output paths' relates to the 'include_outputs' parameter. While not a direct parameter explanation, this adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, justifying a score above baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Get the current status and progress'), identifies the resource ('a specific generation or the overall queue'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on status/progress retrieval rather than queue management (comfy_get_queue), cancellation (comfy_cancel_generation), or generation submission (comfy_generate_simple). The verb+resource+scope combination is precise.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context by mentioning 'a specific generation or the overall queue,' suggesting this tool can be used for both individual job tracking and queue overview. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like comfy_get_queue (which might return different queue details) or comfy_wait_for_completion (which blocks until done). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisite information is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.